Best Of

Tonight's Opinium

Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst

Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.

Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.

“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”

Full details of polling

https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/voting-intention-3rd-june-2026/

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Andy_JS said:
Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo
Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.


I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.

I’m still annoyed about an interview with Lammy the other morning about this where firstly he was asked about the fairness of Malkinson having to pay for his experts and legal advice out of his settlement and he waffled and eventually said he would have to look into the situation (how he doesn’t have it etched in his brain is beyond me) and then the Today interviewer failed to follow up with what is surely the crux of this by asking him whether he can say straight that anyone who is a victim of a miscarriage of justice should not be financially damaged in any way.

I remember Alex Chalk being asked, on the same subject when Justice Minister, absolutely unequivocally saying that Malkinson and similar should not be financially punished.

It’s surely as clear as daylight that if the state makes an error which costs you your freedom, reputation, sanity, life of freedom then any costs incurred whether board and lodging or legal and associated costs to prove the failure by the state should be borne by the state.

I cannot understand why Lammy could not just say, this is a disgrace and we are drafting legislation to ensure that nobody shall be charged anything relating to a false conviction. I can’t imagine there is anyone on here who would not think this is appropriate so why can a politician not just fix it.

If the government prosecutes you, you hire a lawyer and you are found innocent, who pays your lawyer?

Has this got something to do with the China/Ukraine boundary?